In the first of a series of articles presenting cases for the best fighter aircraft of World War II, we start with Jim Smith’s case for the Messerchmitt Bf 109. Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was the greatest fighter of the Second World War.
A simple, bold statement, which many will question, based on their knowledge that other aircraft, in particular variants, were superior to particular variants of the Bf 109.
Nevertheless, if we look at the big picture, of duration in service, of numbers built, and of victories claimed, there can be little doubt that the Bf 109 deserves this accolade.
Firstly, the aircraft design ensured its initial success and immediate superiority. Messerschmitt combined all the available technologies of 1934 to design a stressed-skin, retractable undercarriage fighter with the smallest and lightest possible airframe, around the most powerful available engine. Sharing many of these features with its great rival, the Spitfire, Messerschmitt took advantage of wing leading edge slots, and slotted flaps to reduce wing size without compromising landing speed and controllability at low speeds.
The aircraft enjoyed an initial operational period of superiority over all its competitors, with no match in combat in Spain, or in the initial campaigns of the Second World War in Poland and in France, where its superiority over the Hurricane was evident. Air combat with its British match, the Spitfire, did not occur until May 1940, during the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Contemporary comparisons of the Bf 109E with the Mk 1 Spitfire showed these aircraft to be closely competitive in air combat, with the Spitfire offering greater manoeuvrability due to its lower wing loading, and the Messerschmitt slightly higher speed, a higher climb rate up to 20,000 ft, and the ability to disengage from air combat at will by diving away, thanks to its fuel-injected engine.
Secondly, continuous development kept the Bf 109 competitive with its opponents in the Western Theatre, and superior to its opposition in North Africa, and on the Eastern Front, at least until late in the war. Naturally, both the Spitfire and Messerschmitt were rapidly developed, each in an effort to out-perform their dangerous opponent, and this competitive development resulted in the Spitfire V, with two-stage supercharging, and cannon armament, appearing in 1941. The Bf 109 received extensive aerodynamic refinements and engine development, resulting in the Bf 109F, which came into service at about the same time as the Spitfire V.
Significant improvements to the Bf 109F included refinements to its cooling system, lowering drag, and improvements to flaps, slats and ailerons. The armament was revised to remove the wing-mounted cannon in favour of an engine mounted 20 mm cannon, and two fuselage-mounted 7.9mm machine guns. These changes improved both the manoeuvrability and climb rate of the aircraft, and later models incorporated Nitrous Oxide injection to increase power, and a variety of armament modifications.
The opening of hostilities against the Soviet Union in June 1941 involved large numbers of Bf 109E and Bf 109F aircraft, and resulted in very high numbers of kills of Soviet aircraft. Soviet losses by midday on the second day of the Operation Barbarossa campaign amounted to 1200 aircraft, of which slightly more than 800 were destroyed on the ground. The campaign on the Eastern Front presented the opportunity for experienced fighter pilots, flying the Bf 109 in conditions of air superiority against relatively poorly equipped and trained opposition, to score enormous numbers of kills.
This constitutes the third element in the case for the Bf 109 being the greatest fighter of the Second World War, and is illustrated by some compelling statistics. The top 3 fighter pilots of WW2, all flying Bf 109s on the Eastern Front, claimed a total of 928 victories, 352 falling to Erich Hartmann, 301 to Gerhard Barkhorn, and 275 to Günter Rall. In North Africa, Hans-Joachim Marseille accounted for 158 allied aircraft, and no less than 105 Bf 109 pilots claimed more than 100 aircraft kills.
Development of the Bf 109 continued, with the more powerful, heavier and faster Bf 109G, powered by the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine. The Bf 109G was substantially heavier than earlier models, though, and the increased weight did impact on stability and control, handling qualities and manoeuvrability. Nonetheless, the Bf 109G became the most produced version of the aircraft and, when it entered service in April 1942, was superior to the Spitfire V, particularly when using Nitrous-oxide (GM-1) boost, which was fitted as standard.
While gradually supplemented, by the FW 190 in the West, large numbers of Bf 109G continued to serve on the Eastern and other fronts, and, from mid-1943, increasing use was made of the type as a reconnaissance aircraft, for ground attack, and as a night fighter.
Appearance of the Bf 109F and G, coupled with the entry to service of the Focke-Wulf 190, added urgency to the development of the Spitfire Mk IX, powered by the two-speed, two-stage supercharged Merlin 60, and this aircraft became operational with the RAF in July 1942.
The advent of the Spitfire IX, and from 1944, the P-51 Mustang, Griffon-powered Spitfire variants, and, in the East, the Lavochkin La-7 and Yak-3, placed the Bf 109 in a difficult position. Nevertheless, large numbers of aircraft continued to serve with the Luftwaffe, with the focus of their operations gradually shifting towards homeland defence as Allied forces advanced, following their successes in North Africa, in the invasion of France and Italy, and Soviet advances on the Eastern Front.
The final few months of the war essentially left the Luftwaffe in a defensive situation, with the Messerschmitt 109 now lacking performance against the best of the Allied fighters, and advanced aircraft like the Messerschmitt 262 only available in small numbers. All of the available fighters, principally Bf 109s and Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, were badly affected by logistical issues, particularly shortages of fuel and spare parts.
The fourth and final element of the case for the Bf 109 being the greatest fighter of the Second World War rests simply on the number built and its longevity in service. With continuous development from design initiation in 1934, through innumerable variations up to the end of the conflict in Europe, and beyond, the Bf 109 demonstrated both adaptability and longevity. Post-war variants came from Czechoslovakia with the Avia S-99 and developments, and from Spain, where the Hispano HA 1109 and ultimately the HA 1112 Buchon remained operational up to the end of 1965.
A total of 33,984 Messerschmitt Bf 109 were built, with additional production of about 600 Avia S-99/199 aircraft in Czechoslovakia, and a further 200 or so Hispano 1112 aircraft in Spain. Â Nearly 14,000 Bf 109G were manufactured in 1944 alone, and overall, Bf 109 production amounted to about a quarter of all aircraft built for the Luftwaffe. By comparison, production of the Spitfire, which also occurred throughout the conflict, amounted to 22,759 airframes.
The Bf 109 was the greatest fighter of the Second World War because:
- Its advanced design resulted in periods of superiority over its opponents, particularly for early variants in the Spanish Civil War, and for the Bf 109E, which was superior to all opposition up to May 1940, from which time the Spitfire 1 achieved broad parity with the Bf 109E;
- The aerodynamic and engine improvements introduced with the Bf 109F gave that aircraft superiority over the Spitfire V, over Allied fighters in the early part of the North Africa campaign, and over Soviet aircraft in the first year of the campaign on the Eastern Front;
- The number of victories claimed by Bf 109 pilots far exceeds the numbers achieved by pilots of any other aircraft, largely due to the superiority enjoyed by Luftwaffe pilots over Soviet aircraft and pilots on the Eastern Front, but also due to the aircraft’s successes in other Theatres;
- The number of aircraft produced and fielded exceeded that of all other military aircraft, with the exception of the Ilyushin Il 2 armoured attack aircraft. The Bf 109, like the Spitfire, was manufactured from before WW2 through to the end of hostilities and beyond. The final related version, the Merlin-engined Buchon, first flew in 1954, and was operational until the end of 1965, 30 years after the prototype Bf 109’s first flight.
Sources:
Warplanes of the Third Reich, William Green, 1970
Warplanes of the Second World War – Fighters Vol 1 & 2, William Green, 1960
Wings of Fame Volume 4: Messerschmitt Bf 109 early variants, David Donald, 1996
Wings of Fame Volume 11: Messerschmitt Bf 109: the later variants, David Donald, 1998
Wikipedia
Wasn’t it one of the less costly fighters to manufacture as well? I’ve often seen it claimed that the Spitfire took at least twice as many man-hours to build.
The last time that ME109’s and Spitfires fought in combat was not in 1945, as most people would answer. In fact it was during the Israel war of independence in 1947/48, when Spitfires flown by the RAF out of Egypt fought ME109’s bought from Czechoslovakia by the Israelis. A little known fact useful for quizzes!
While the bf109 was simply put ahead of its time in the mid/late peace of the 30’s much of its success certainly at the start of the second world war was down to experience it’s pilots gathered against peacemeal opponents overrunning countries that had no significant resistance.
The parity that the spitfire gained in 1940 was mostly down to the location of the air battles that limited the range, endurance and speed of the 109’s as they escorted bombers over southern England. The Spitfires and Hurricane having the benefit of knowing where and when it’s opponents where likely to be thanks to radar and the observer corps.
Over Dunkirk and in early Chanel clashes the Bf109 was generally capable of dealing with or running from Spitfires if the situation wasn’t favourable.
To sum up all things equal a BF109E in 1939 or early 1940 should win or escape more engagements with a MK1 Spitfire than it looses.
To say that the 109 was the best fighter of ww2 is completely unfounded. It’s range was so short that the Germans lost the battle of Britain solely due to the fact that the 109 could only stay over England for about fifteen minutes before having to return to base in France due to lack of fuel. It was undoubtedly one of the best fighters in the war but only as a defensive weapon. All of the American fighters even if less maneuverable had much more range. The P51not only was just as agile as the 109 but could not only escort our bombers all the way to Berlin and back but loiter in the target area and shoot up the area at will. The fw190 was a much better fighter and could absorb much more punishment and bring its pilot back home. The 109 was the first real quality fighter produced but since the Germans didn’t have any strategic mindset they failed to take advantage of their experience and technology to come up with even better aircraft such as the me262 and use them properly. Hitler wanted to use the 262 as a bomber instead of putting it into mass production early enough for it to do any real good.
it’s not “unfounded” it us backed by facts. Something the tall tales of WW2 told by the xommunist coalition invented about Germany.
the p51 was NOWHERE near as agile as the Bf109. The P51 was no dog fighter the Bf109 was a dogfighter… it’s range was short due to it being designed as the world’s second POINT INTERCEPTOR( after the equally revolutionary Siemens Halske powered Siemens-Schukert D-IV). it possessed a far heavier armament, was a smaller target with much much much more powerful engines.. the Germans used 87 to 90 octane fuel wheras the communist coalition needed 120 to 150 octane for proper function of the poor quality engines. Eric Brown did a comparison at the end of WW2.consisting of mock dogfight with 109G, 51 and Spit XVI, speed with 90 octane, speed with 150 octane..guess what?? The 109G BLEW AWAY ALL COMPETITION tighter turn, faster climb, superior agility, speed with 90 octane was 415mph ( p51 was 375mph, XVI was 384mph) speed with 150 octane was 526mph (51 was 420mph, XVI was 418mph).(plus there was the K4 which was 40mph faster than the G10ASM)Germans did phenomenal with 87 octane… better engines that were lighter, more compact and more powerful.proof of this is the fact that the Jumo 213 on the D9 was THE ONLY ENGINE IN THE WORLD APART FROM THE 606ASM AND 603 THAT COULD MAKE 1800HP+ AT 7KM ELEV.the Ta152 with the 603 was the fastest single engine fighter of WW2 at 472mph. The Do335 was the fastest piston engine fighter ever at 480mph..
Horseshit.
It is difficult to argue to this. I would say the Mustang was a better aircraft, but of course it didn’t serve throughout the whole war. Most pilots say the Hurricane wasn’t that bad against the Bf-109 during the Battle of Britain, but of course it was out classed at the battle for Malta.
The case for the Me109 NOT being the greatest fighter of WW2:
– Though its successive variants forced opponents to play catch-up during most of the war, it was not the case anymore at the end, where latest variants were basically warmed up G variants;
– Even its post-war S-199 and Buchòn were just the same airframe/wing combination with another engine, making them obsolete aircraft, whereas a Ta152 or Spitfire Mk24 were completely new aircraft compared to their original designs with close to nothing left over.
– The success of its pilots was mostly due to other factors like political (unpreparedness to war from the soviet side), or human (ultra experienced pilots who fought the whole war giving them an indisputable edge).
– The fact that it was the most produced is not because it was better, but because german industry had nothing else new to rely to. Maybe no American type was produced in such large numbers, but if you add-up the production of P-38, P-40, P-47, and P-51 that is a different story, with the advantage of having different types allowing greater flexibility and insurance against the potential failure of a variant.
Just my point of view… comments ?
the 109 is the best…it kept equal and even superior performance while running on inferior fuels… Eric Brown confirmed this.
having more than 2 or 3 different designs for the SAME PURPISE is not a n advantage but a liability and only cause most anerican manufacturers couldn’t built quality and refused to build competitor designs.
the 109 was produced in those numbers cause IT WAS THE BEST AND THE GERMANS KNEW IT WAS THE BEST AND HAD N9 REAL DESIRE TO REPLACE IT.
and btw the Ta152 IS IN NO WAY A “COMPLETELY NEW AIRCRAFT” OT WAS A SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED 190G. With a bigger tail, a fuselage plug and either a 213 or 603 engine .
the Ta153 would’ve been a new aircraft.
the spitfire were all completely unique aircraft with next to no commonality except the fraudulent use of heinkels wing.
“it kept equal and even superior performance while running on inferior fuels…”
Yeah, but that’s barely a 109’s achievement, and instead one of Daimler-Benz engineers who managed to make an engine with higher displacement than contemporary inlines like the Merlin or VK-105. Albeit with a plethora of problems like the inability of DB-605s to maintain 1.42 Ata up until 1943 – early 1944 without spitting oil or spontaneously combusting.
What the 109 did in the meantime was struggling to accommodate the new engines and armament because of how tight the original design was.
“the 109 was produced in those numbers cause IT WAS THE BEST AND THE GERMANS KNEW IT WAS THE BEST AND HAD N9 REAL DESIRE TO REPLACE IT”
More like because any significant change in production would cause something close to a collapse in terms of aircraft availability and maintenance. There were attempts to replace Bf 109 with generally better fighters, the problem was within the fact that the 109 became the backbone of the Luftwaffe, even if it couldn’t catch up as well further on.
“the spitfire were all completely unique aircraft with next to no commonality except the fraudulent use of heinkels wing”
Lol, that’s as bland of a lie as saying that the 109 didn’t change through the war. The most common Spitfire marks (V and IX) stem from the necessity to re-engine the previous Mark’s airframe for a new Merlin for a variety of reasons: Mark I with Merlin 45 became the Mk.V because the Brits were afraid of another battle of Britain and needed to catch up to Bf 109F ASAP, and later Mk.V got a Merlin 61 and thus became the early Mk.IX once it got into a tight spot with the Fw 190.
Oh, and regarding “heinkels wing” that’s a blatant lie, for further info look up actual academic works on the Spitfire’s design like this: https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4843/the-spitfire-wing-planform-a-suggestion.pdf
I’ll just quote Beverley Shenstone from there: “It has been suggested that we at Supermarine had cribbed the Spitfire’s elliptic wing shape from that of the German Heinkel 70 transport. This was not so. The elliptic wing shape had been used in other aircraft and its advantages were well known. Our wing was much thinner than that of the Heinkel and had a quite different section.â€
Really, read the whole article since it provides more intricate details about the design of the fighter and also He 70’s influence (it still had one, albeit not in the wing), I highly recommend it.
The Spitfire MkV had a two speed supercharger, not a two stage.
Thats rarely worked just like those made in the USA and ussr
[…] their carrier’s fighter controllers to conduct visual sweeps of set areas. [3] Try doing that in a Bf 109 or, well pretty much anything with an inline engine if you want to actually see the […]
[…] their carrier’s fighter controllers to conduct visual sweeps of set areas. [3] Try doing that in a Bf 109 or, well pretty much anything with an inline engine if you want to actually see the […]
It’s high wing loading and leading edge slats we’re a significant handicap for the 109 in comparison with both the Hurricane and the Spitfire since limited its rate of turn. The high wing loading also seriously limited its further development, there being only 2 further versions after the 109e, which participated 8n the Battle of Britain, compared with 23 for the Spifire Mk1, which had approximately half the wing loading. Also, it is unjustified to compare kill rates because the Germans were much less rigorous about awarding victories than the RAF and they often flew against much inferior opposing fighters.
The 109 was an excellent fighter with technical advantages like fuel injection and cannons, but the best?
It was really the bf 109 g far inferior to the lighter f models that let the side down. It was forced to carry more guns,and was much too heavy. The reason for it was Allied bombing raids started to hurt.So the G models where designed to bring down US bombers,while the fw 190s provided fighter protection. That’s why when the mustang arrived the bf 109g was considered easy meat.